Buzz Comments

[GOMU1104]

MU84...every point you have tried to make so far, has been refuted. Again, quit while you are behind.

[ATWizJr]

Doesn't rebounding count for anything?

[tower912]

84 tees them up, BMA smashes them.     Again

[Marquette84]

The problem is, you are using a definition of "pure point guard" that no one else is using.  Pure point guard means that their game is naturally suited to the position.  That is entire accurate when it comes to Junior...not so when it comes to Cubillan.  No one doubts that Buzz's plan for this year was to have Cubillan serve in that role when Junior got hurt, it is just a role that he is ill-suited to play...and that is hurting us right now.

So you're saying that nobody disagreed with the actual substance of what I was saying, but because I used a phrase that could be misinterpreted it justifies them making personal insults and name calling?

What happened to the Jesuit values that MU is supposed to impart on people?

You're right it doesn't take much effort to look up some dates and some stats, but it does take some effort to look up what was going on in their recruiting, which you clearly didn't do.

You're right--I didn't go to that level of detail.

Navin's initial point was that bigs simply weren't available at all during the spring singing period.  He joked about trying to find them at Costco or the Mens Store at Mayfair.  

My point was to show that there were bigs available--not to suggest that all of these guys were sure things for MU.

I'm sorry that I didn't explain that well enough.

I agree with you that there may have been some reasons we wanted to take a pass on some of these players--and that some wanted to take a pass on us.  

In any event, it refutes the contention that nobody is available in the spring.

[GOMU1104]

MU84...You called Cubillian a "pure point guard."  What are we supposed to think?  Had you thought it out and explained it in a different way, we may have been able to respect your point.

[GGGG]

So you're saying that nobody disagreed with the actual substance of what I was saying, but because I used a phrase that could be misinterpreted it justifies them making personal insults and name calling?

What happened to the Jesuit values that MU is supposed to impart on people?

You're the one that initially misused the phrase...and outside of "Joanie," nobody called you anything.  Seriously, if you are going to post to a public forum, don't get your panties in a wad if someone calls you out on what you say.

[Hards Alumni]

So you're saying that nobody disagreed with the actual substance of what I was saying, but because I used a phrase that could be misinterpreted it justifies them making personal insults and name calling?

What happened to the Jesuit values that MU is supposed to impart on people?




You're right--I didn't go to that level of detail.

Navin's initial point was that bigs simply weren't available at all during the spring singing period.  He joked about trying to find them at Costco or the Mens Store at Mayfair.  

My point was to show that there were bigs available--not to suggest that all of these guys were sure things for MU.

I'm sorry that I didn't explain that well enough.

I agree with you that there may have been some reasons we wanted to take a pass on some of these players--and that some wanted to take a pass on us.  

In any event, it refutes the contention that nobody is available in the spring.

The problem is that it took you umpteen posts to accept that you were wrong.  In the interim, you back pedaled, and tried to change criteria.

Its okay to be wrong once in a while... I'm wrong more than once in a while... but I admit when I am and people are more accepting because of it.

[Lennys Tap]

84 - you say "So you're saying that nobody disagreed with the actual substance of what I was saying, but because I used a phrase that could be misinterpreted it justifies them making personal insults and name calling?

What happened to the Jesuit values that MU is supposed to impart on people?"

1. I disagree with the actual substance of the post. It was originally thought (and stated) by Buzz that both Buycks and DJO were capable of playing the point. Nobody suggested they were "pure point guards" but the hope was they could provide minutes at the position.
2. You didn't use a "phrase that can be misinterpreted". You made a statement that was patently false to anyone who had ever seen David Cubillan play.
3. When you are called out after making outrageous or factually incorrect claims you often respond by seeing "personal insults" and "name calling" that is non existant or mild by message board standards. Trying to seize some "high moral ground" by contending your critics lack your Jesuit values is as weak as it is false.

[Marquette84]

1. I disagree with the actual substance of the post. It was originally thought (and stated) by Buzz that both Buycks and DJO were capable of playing the point. Nobody suggested they were "pure point guards" but the hope was they could provide minutes at the position.

But for all his warts, Cubillan has proven more capable than either Buycks or DJO--hence the fact that he's winning the minutes over each of them on this years team.  I stand by the original statement--neither Buycks nor DJO were brought in to serve as the backup PG.  Cubillan was expected to serve that role.

2. You didn't use a "phrase that can be misinterpreted". You made a statement that was patently false to anyone who had ever seen David Cubillan play.

Is it patently false to Buzz Williams as well? 

3. When you are called out after making outrageous or factually incorrect claims you often respond by seeing "personal insults" and "name calling" that is non existant or mild by message board standards.

So that excuses it?  "My personal attacks aren't as bad as others I've seen, so they're okay . . ."

Trying to seize some "high moral ground" by contending your critics lack your Jesuit values is as weak as it is false.

More personal attacks.

Sorry--not false.  Name calling and personal attacks against someone you disagree with are simply not consistent with Jesuit values.

And what could be weaker than name calling and personal attacks to reply to something you disagree with?

If you don't want to be called out such name calling or personal attacks, don't make them. 

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Buzz should adopt a "pure point guard" so we won't have to use up a scholarship.

[GOMU1104]

Wow MU84 is sensitive. Heres an idea:

Dont say stupid stuff, and you wont be subject to such harsh personal attacks

[Pakuni]

Is it patently false to Buzz Williams as well? 

Arguing that because Buzz Williams planned to use Cubillan as a backup point guard means he believes David Cubillan is "a pure point guard" is, well, lame. Buzz intended to use Cubie as a backup point because he, at the time, was the best option.
Apparently Tom Crean had Dameon Mason and Joe Chapman at the point in 2005 because he believed they were pure point guards.

p.s. Unless you believe your argument is a person, this is not a personal attack.

And what could be weaker than name calling and personal attacks to reply to something you disagree with?
If you don't want to be called out such name calling or personal attacks, don't make them.  

Hmmm ... implying that another poster is "weak" or doing something "weak" ... sounds like a personal attack to me.
And then "calling out" someone for their possible violation of Jesuit ethics? Whatever happened to turning the other cheek?

How very un-Jesuit of you.
Tsk, tsk.

[MU B2002]

Shouldn't this debate be going on over in the "MU is to sensitive" thread?

[Marquette84]

Arguing that because Buzz Williams planned to use Cubillan as a backup point guard means he believes David Cubillan is "a pure point guard" is, well, lame. Buzz intended to use Cubie as a backup point because he, at the time, was the best option.

Thank you--I'm glad that you and I agree 100% with me on the substance of my post.  Buzz planned to use Cuillan as a backup point guard.  He might not have been the best backup in the league, but, at the time, he was, as you say, the best option.

Also thank you for reminding me that I should not have used the term "pure point guard."  I'm sure you are brining it up only because the other 10 or 15 or so posts that raised that very point were difficult to find and I may have missed them.

Bottom line, looking ahead at this season, Buzz planned on using Cadougan as the primary point, and Cuibillan as the backup. 

Apparently Tom Crean had Dameon Mason and Joe Chapman at the point in 2005 because he believed they were pure point guards.

A word of advice . . . I strongly suggest that you not use the words "pure point guard" in your post. 

p.s. Unless you believe your argument is a person, this is not a personal attack.

I'm glad you recognize this. 

Hmmm ... implying that another poster is "weak" or doing something "weak" ... sounds like a personal attack to me.

Unless you believe "name calling and personal attacks" are a person, its not a personal attack.

[Lennys Tap]

Thank you--I'm glad that you and I agree 100% with me on the substance of my post.  Buzz planned to use Cuillan as a backup point guard.  He might not have been the best backup in the league, but, at the time, he was, as you say, the best option.

Also thank you for reminding me that I should not have used the term "pure point guard."  I'm sure you are brining it up only because the other 10 or 15 or so posts that raised that very point were difficult to find and I may have missed them.

Bottom line, looking ahead at this season, Buzz planned on using Cadougan as the primary point, and Cuibillan as the backup. 



A word of advice . . . I strongly suggest that you not use the words "pure point guard" in your post. 



I'm glad you recognize this. 


Unless you believe "name calling and personal attacks" are a person, its not a personal attack.

84 - Other than one poster calling you "Joanie" please cite other examples of "name calling". Certainly nothing compared with calling people out for "lacking Jesuit values" because they pointed out your  misstatement of facts. Initially you were only guilty of saying something stupid (not being stupid, saying something stupid) - which everyone on this board has done from time to time. Your inability to own up to your error and your outrage towards those who pointed it out says nothing about us. Perhaps you should ponder what it says about you. Please note that nowhere in this post do I call you any names so I'd appreciate it if you refrain from accusing me of such. Thanks.

[Marquette84]

84 - Other than one poster calling you "Joanie" please cite other examples of "name calling". Certainly nothing compared with calling people out for "lacking Jesuit values" because they pointed out your  misstatement of facts. Initially you were only guilty of saying something stupid (not being stupid, saying something stupid) - which everyone on this board has done from time to time. Your inability to own up to your error and your outrage towards those who pointed it out says nothing about us. Perhaps you should ponder what it says about you. Please note that nowhere in this post do I call you any names so I'd appreciate it if you refrain from accusing me of such. Thanks.

Did you forget that you posted this:

Anyone who has watched Cubillan play for 5 minutes and describes him as a "pure point guard" should recuse himself from any discussion of college basketball.

That's not merely pointing out a misstatement--you made it personal.  I responded in kind--probably a mistake, but understandable given your comments when combined with those of others.

If you'd like to apologize for making this personal, I'll accept it and in turn apologize for escalating things.  If you're going to argue you're completely innocent, I'm going to disagree with your statement and cite the quote above as evidence.



You know what the irony about this whole thread is? 

Nobody (except you) actually disagreed with the underlying comment.  Nobody debates the fact that Buzz planned to start Cadougan and give him the lions share of the minutes, and use Cuby as the backup PG.  It was a throwaway point--BMA tried to suggest that we needed another guard.  I disagreed, replying that that in Buzz's offense, there is a blurring of the 2/3/4, and that the only true position guard is the point, and that Cadougan and Cubillan were the two players planned to split minutes in that role.  I said what we really needed was another inside player.

And even your objection isn't really that strong--suggesting that we could use Bucyks or DJO at the point--something which subsequent play has proven to be unworkable.


And lets not forget the other point I tried to make--refuting Navin's suggestion that nobody could land a big during the spring signing period.   He demanded I provide names, so I provided him some names that other teams were able to find and sign.  If they could find a big, it reasons that we could have done so as well.  That should have been the end of it.  Navin should have replied with "I guess I was wrong--there are bigs available during the spring signing period."

Instead, BMA jumps in and tries to suggest I'm wrong by providing the reasons why we didn't want or couldn't land each of those players.

But in reality, that proved my point--If the players are out there and we tried (and failed) to land them--then you can't argue the players weren't there.  You have to accept hat it was a shortcoming in recruiting.

Navin claimed no players were available.  I listed some that were, and BMA confirmed that we tried--and failed--to land some of them. 

Which brings us back to the main point of the thread:  We have no serviceable bigs on the roster.  Some would attribute that to nothing more than a run of bad luck. I feel that some of the blame should be placed on recruiting.  I believe that our current situation was foreseeable as early as March, and that at that point there were serviceable bigs that could have been recruited in the spring, as other teams were able to do.

[Hards Alumni]

congrats, you've done your best to make an ass of yourself, and you've succeeded.

and that isn't personal.

[mu-rara]

Anyone who has watched Cubillan play for 5 minutes and describes him as a "pure point guard" should recuse himself from any discussion of college basketball

Did you forget that you posted this:

That's not merely pointing out a misstatement--you made it personal.  I responded in kind--probably a mistake, but understandable given your comments when combined with those of others.

84, man are you touchy.  That is the least offensive way of telling someone he's an idiot I've seen.

[tower912]

March 2009 projected bigs, Liam, Otule, Roseboro, Jeronne.     Projected Bigs April 2009, Otule, Roseboro, Yous, Jeronne.    Clark coming in a year.  Projected guards, prior to DJO' signing, Cubi, Acker, Cadougan, Buycks.       Clearly, based on projections, we needed another guard more.      Hells bells, man, how can you look at those and think differently?     Yup, our bigs are like Spinal Tap drummers, Detroit Lion defensive backs, or any Cubs team in October.   Hindsight is wonderful.   

[Marquette84]

March 2009 projected bigs, Liam, Otule, Roseboro, Jeronne.     Projected Bigs April 2009, Otule, Roseboro, Yous, Jeronne.    Clark coming in a year.  Projected guards, prior to DJO' signing, Cubi, Acker, Cadougan, Buycks.       Clearly, based on projections, we needed another guard more.      Hells bells, man, how can you look at those and think differently?     Yup, our bigs are like Spinal Tap drummers, Detroit Lion defensive backs, or any Cubs team in October.   Hindsight is wonderful.   

Finally, a discussion on basketball.  Thank you.  Seriously.

You ask "Hells bells, man, how can you look at those and think differently?"  I'd be happy to explain.  I use the start of the 2009 spring recruiting window as the basis:

--Yous--Was not recruited yet
--Clark--Was not available until the 2010-11 season
--Liam--His career was over
--Roseboro--He was not projected to be an inside player--a Novak like wing.
--Jeronne--undersized as a big--only 6'6" or 6'7"--thought he was coming in to play 2/3/4
--Otule--only projected inside player, didn't demonstrate Big East potential in first year

Let me now map out the players by role on the team:

Here's how I saw the lineup going into the spring signing period:

• Projected PGs:  Cadougan, Cubillan, Acker (potentially leaving)
• Projected Wings:  Butler, Hayward, EWilliams, Roseoboro, Maymon, Buycks, Fulce, Hazel (leaving)
• Projected Cs:  Otule

We were good at PG.  We were good with wings.  But We had zero margin for error up front. 

This is how I looked at the situation.  Its not hindsight--its a projection of looking forward from where we were at the conclusion of the Final Four--when recruiting could begin in earnest.

With that context, our #1 priority should have been a 6'9"+ player who was servicable.  Not a potential All American.  Not a budding superstar.  Not a project that could develop down the road. 

What we needed most was someone who was ready to come in and split minutes with Otule.

As for DJO. He's a nice player--but he he didn't fill our greatest need.  It would be fine to take him if the plan was to use the OTHER available scholarship to fill that need.  But we didn't do that.  We took a risk on a player that might pay off in future years, but wasn't in anybody's imagination going to contribute this year.

[tower912]

Before Liam's career ended, he was projected to start at the 5, Otule backing him up, with Roseboro a 4-5 (possibly redshirting), Jeronne a 3-4 and Clark a year out.   After Liam's career ended, Yous was signed about a month later (don't quibble, I'm not looking up dates and you know what I mean)    Otule projected as starter, Yous either backing him up or red-shirting, Roseboro still a combo 4-5, with a 6-10 athlete already in the pipeline a year away.   You and I have different recollections about how Roseboro projected.   I remember 6'10, ability to guard the 5, able to spot up out to the 3 point line.  More Bill Laimbeer/Jack Sikma than Novak.   Anyway you slice it, 3 guys 6'10 or more, with a 4th on the way.     Cubi and MO have WAAAYYYY overperformed what anybody projected for them a year ago.    JC and DB starting with those two guys getting spot minutes was the conventional wisdom.    DJO was a gift that Buzz outhustled everyone to get.   Our bigs turned out poorly.   No way that could have been predicted.   Buzz recruited size and numbers and it still went awry.   Sometimes, the great putt lips out.  

[GOMU1104]

First off, Roseboro and Ewill were not seen as wings. Buzz uses the term "dribble guys" and "non dribble guys"...both were (and still are) "non dribble guys."

At the point in time you reference, it was expected that Maymon (and to an extent Roseboro and Ewill) would have provided something down low.  Turns out Roseboro wasnt who they thought he was, Maymon left, and Ewill just isnt ready yet. But at the time of the year you are referencing, the were expecting more out of those 3.

Buzz had the chance to add a really good player in DJO, and took advantage of it...the way he is supposed to.

Would you rather have had a DJO, or a signing like Jamil Lott?

[tower912]

Thanks.   I forgot that EWill projected as a 4.   But it helps my argument.    Based on what we had and thought we had, we needed DJO more.   

[Hards Alumni]

First off, Roseboro and Ewill were not seen as wings. Buzz uses the term "dribble guys" and "non dribble guys"...both were (and still are) "non dribble guys."

At the point in time you reference, it was expected that Maymon (and to an extent Roseboro and Ewill) would have provided something down low.  Turns out Roseboro wasnt who they thought he was, Maymon left, and Ewill just isnt ready yet. But at the time of the year you are referencing, the were expecting more out of those 3.

Buzz had the chance to add a really good player in DJO, and took advantage of it...the way he is supposed to.

Would you rather have had a DJO, or a signing like Jamil Lott?

But that is what Marq84 does... he just changes the criteria so the outcome is most favorable to his argument.

[GOMU1104]

Also...dont forget that Buzz really didnt care too much for Acker and Cubillian last year. He wanted to bring in his own guys...Like Buycks, Cadougan, and DJO.